NCAA BCS Exec. Dir. tries to defend the bowl system - WOW! - Page 4

Cooleyvol · 12-07-2009, 01:08 PM

Your math escapes me and the discussion is moot. I maintain that 12 games is enough to find the 16 best teams for a playoff, if that's the size that's desired.

I'm torn between 8 and 16 teams in a playoff, but again, its moot.

Erik W. · 12-07-2009, 01:23 PM

16 teams would be too many for a CFB playoff. This year you could even have as few as six, but this is an odd year in that no one below #6 has fewer than two losses.

I think you could safely go with a 10 team playoff. No one outside the top 10 has any real room for complaint about not getting to play for the title.

So, this year that would be:

As for the "top team won't win it!" thing, are they really the best team if they lose?

Cooleyvol · 12-07-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I know its happened in basketball.

This is football we are talking about however where you only play so many games.

With a 16 team tourny we are opening it up so that the best team in college football wins the Championship 1 out of 5 years or something in that range(havent done the math) just to give more undeserving teams that chance.

If you have a 75 percent chance of winning each game in what would be 4 playoff games. You have a 50 percent chance of winning the tourny. If we stagger the numbers to a more realistic level lets say 80/70/60/55 chances of winning and its more like 1 out 5 the best team wins.

Seems to work for all other divisions of college football. Why not for D1?

jbergey22 · 12-07-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooleyvol

Seems to work for all other divisions of college football. Why not for D1?

Thats very opinion based. Who says it works?

It may work for some but it doesnt mean its the best option.

And what you think works and what I think works are two different things. Perhaps I like a system where the best teams play in the final game. You maybe like a more fair system. Doesnt mean either one of us is right/wrong.

mikev · 12-07-2009, 01:37 PM

How can you say the best teams are playing in the final game this year? I see 5 teams that haven't lost yet.

jbergey22 · 12-07-2009, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik W.

16 teams would be too many for a CFB playoff. This year you could even have as few as six, but this is an odd year in that no one below #6 has fewer than two losses.

I think you could safely go with a 10 team playoff. No one outside the top 10 has any real room for complaint about not getting to play for the title.

So, this year that would be:

As for the "top team won't win it!" thing, are they really the best team if they lose?

The 10 team bracket looks OK. I didnt like Oregon(Pac 10) winner having to play an extra game over a team that didnt win their conference despite Florida being a better team.

The top team doesnt win it often. You dont really think if the 07 Pats faced the 07 Giants 100 times that the Giants would have won more games that the Pats do you?

The Giants won the game that matter but Id be willing to bet the Patriots would win that same game 70-75 percent of the time.

mikev · 12-07-2009, 01:44 PM

Okay so now we're changing the argument and the team that won the game isn't actually better, it's the team you think would win more often.

Pointless argument is pointless.

jbergey22 · 12-07-2009, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikev

How can you say the best teams are playing in the final game this year? I see 5 teams that haven't lost yet.

Actually they probably arent Florida/Alabama are likely the best two but since Florida lost to Alabama they dont deserve another chance. Just like TCU/Boise St dont deserve the chance because their strength of schedule indicates they havent done enough to deserve the chance.

jbergey22 · 12-07-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikev

Okay so now we're changing the argument and the team that won the game isn't actually better, it's the team you think would win more often.

Pointless argument is pointless.

You seriously need to understand the topic before you make the trollish comments.

The point is making a team play more games increases the chance the best team wont win that is why I dont like 16 team tournys. You maybe dont care that the best team wins, it doesnt make you wrong, you just want a fair system.

Its sports anyone can beat anyone on any given day I just want to take some of the random out of it.

We basically got see a playoff game in the SEC Championship game. How important would that game have been with a 16 team tourny? More teams that are in the playoffs the less important the regular season games are. There is a reason that college football attendence is so high.

mikev · 12-07-2009, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Actually they probably arent Florida/Alabama are likely the best two but since Florida lost to Alabama they dont deserve another chance. Just like TCU/Boise St dont deserve the chance because their strength of schedule indicates they havent done enough to deserve the chance.

Boise State manhandled the #7 team in the country. Alabama nearly (and probably should have) lost to Tennessee. TCU dominated every game they played. Florida lost to Alabama. Texas played Oklahoma without Bradford (by your logic, they SHOULD have lost that game if Bradford played) and they needed a miracle on the last drive to beat Nebraska.

Now is the part where you dismiss the Boise win over Oregon because it wsa early, and then talk about how awesome the Big12 and SEC are and it's so much more awesome to win those games than for TCU and Boise to dominate every game they played.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbergey22

You seriously need to understand the topic before you make the trollish comments.

The point is making a team play more games increases the chance the best team wont win that is why I dont like 16 team tournys. You maybe dont care that the best team wins, it doesnt make you wrong, you just want a fair system.

Its sports anyone can beat anyone on any given day I just want to take some of the random out of it.

I understand the topic completely, which is why I'm not talking about NFL games in the middle of a college football discussion.

You apparently define best differently than other people. Usually it's defined as the team who wins the game, but instead you want it to mean whatever team you think is better. If Texas is the best team, they'll get through a playoff no problem, right?

I just don't understand how someone can say that teams don't even deserve the CHANCE to be the champions, because right now the entire system is set up that way.

Quote:

We basically got see a playoff game in the SEC Championship game. How important would that game have been with a 16 team tourny? More teams that are in the playoffs the less important the regular season games are. There is a reason that college football attendence is so high.

The SEC championship would have been just as important as all the other conference championship games. What's wrong with that?

Oh, and attendance is so high because tickets are cheaper and there are millions of college alumni.

jbergey22 · 12-07-2009, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikev

Boise State manhandled the #7 team in the country. Alabama nearly (and probably should have) lost to Tennessee. TCU dominated every game they played. Florida lost to Alabama. Texas played Oklahoma without Bradford (by your logic, they SHOULD have lost that game if Bradford played) and they needed a miracle on the last drive to beat Nebraska.

By my logic??? I actually bet on Texas and made a lot of money, thanks. So I have no idea what by my logic means on that. Texas was the better team at the time according to spreads so the better team probably won that game.

And I am glad you are starting to understand the talent disparity between the Big 12/SEC and the Mountain West and WAC.

Big 12/SEC are loaded with 4/5 star recruits on almost every team. They beat on each other every week so any game can come down to the end. On the other hand you have TCU/Boise St loaded with 2/3 star recruits beating the hell out of 1/2 star recruits and walk ons.

And yes Boise did a nice job against Oregon. The season Oregon ended up having makes it more impressive. Boise isnt a team Id want to play to be honest as they are a confident team that plays great on turf. They wouldnt have the depth or strength to matchup in the SEC or Big 12 however so theyd likely finsh 4-4 or 3-5 in either of them conferences. TCU reminds me of Miss St in a lot of ways.(great defense, weak offense) Im not sure on Cincy, their offense is as good as I seen all year but they also couldnt stop teams from scoring. I suppose in the right matchup they could outscore a powerful team.

David Watts · 12-07-2009, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbergey22

The 10 team bracket looks OK. I didnt like Oregon(Pac 10) winner having to play an extra game over a team that didnt win their conference despite Florida being a better team.

The top team doesnt win it often. You dont really think if the 07 Pats faced the 07 Giants 100 times that the Giants would have won more games that the Pats do you?

The Giants won the game that matter but Id be willing to bet the Patriots would win that same game 70-75 percent of the time.

Where would these games be played? Would they be played on a neutral field or does the top seed host the game? That is if a 10 team or 8 team playoff system is adopted.

Erik W. · 12-07-2009, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Watts

Where would these games be played? Would they be played on a neutral field or does the top seed host the game?

It's likely that if any playoff scenario were to exist the existing bowl games would be turned into playoff games.

That's the idea that's been tossed about a lot, and it's not exactly new. It's how Canada does it.

jbergey22 · 12-07-2009, 02:31 PM

TCU's class rankings 2006 61st, 2007 80th, 2008 96th, 2009 46th
Boises Class Rankings 2006 70th, 2007 68th, 2008 89th, 2009 72nd

taken from Rivals.com

Sure its not an indication of a lot of things but its a guideline of the talent of these teams ESPECIALLY when you match them up against a team that is consistently getting top 10 recruiting classes.

David Watts · 12-07-2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik W.

It's likely that if any playoff scenario were to exist the existing bowl games would be turned into playoff games.

That's the idea that's been tossed about a lot, and it's not exactly new. It's how Canada does it.

Ok, so using your example Ohio State would play a total of 4 games( at various bowl venues) over the span of 4 weeks. How many of their actual fans are going to be able to attend these games?

TribeFanInNC · 12-07-2009, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik W.

It's likely that if any playoff scenario were to exist the existing bowl games would be turned into playoff games.

That's the idea that's been tossed about a lot, and it's not exactly new. It's how Canada does it.

Just to go further, the bowls haven't agreed to this because they are worried about putting fannies in the seats for teams in three separate locations on consecutive weeks. Even teams with huge rabid national fan bases (like say Ohio State) would find it difficult to fill stadiums in say Atlanta, Tampa, and Pasedena through the holidays on consecutive weeks. I can't believe schools like Ga Tech or Boise St or Cincy would be able to do it at all.

Cooleyvol · 12-07-2009, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TribeFanInNC

Just to go further, the bowls haven't agreed to this because they are worried about putting fannies in the seats for teams in three separate locations on consecutive weeks. Even teams with huge rabid national fan bases (like say Ohio State) would find it difficult to fill stadiums in say Atlanta, Tampa, and Pasedena through the holidays on consecutive weeks. I can't believe schools like Ga Tech or Boise St or Cincy would be able to do it at all.

Thats why the first two rounds (of a 16 team playoff) or the first round (of an 8 team playoff) should be played on the campus of the higher ranked team. That leaves three playoff games at bowls (rotating among the four big bowls).

Oh, and bergey, you crack me up. This isnt worth debating at this point with you. You change the direction each time you're cornered.

mikev · 12-07-2009, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbergey22

By my logic??? I actually bet on Texas and made a lot of money, thanks. So I have no idea what by my logic means on that. Texas was the better team at the time according to spreads so the better team probably won that game.

And I am glad you are starting to understand the talent disparity between the Big 12/SEC and the Mountain West and WAC.

Big 12/SEC are loaded with 4/5 star recruits on almost every team. They beat on each other every week so any game can come down to the end. On the other hand you have TCU/Boise St loaded with 2/3 star recruits beating the hell out of 1/2 star recruits and walk ons.

And yes Boise did a nice job against Oregon. The season Oregon ended up having makes it more impressive. Boise isnt a team Id want to play to be honest as they are a confident team that plays great on turf. They wouldnt have the depth or strength to matchup in the SEC or Big 12 however so theyd likely finsh 4-4 or 3-5 in either of them conferences. TCU reminds me of Miss St in a lot of ways.(great defense, weak offense) Im not sure on Cincy, their offense is as good as I seen all year but they also couldnt stop teams from scoring. I suppose in the right matchup they could outscore a powerful team.

Yes, your logic, the same logic you displayed by saying New England would beat the Giants however many times if they played 100 games. I guess you don't think losing the heisman trophy winner is worth a 3 point swing?

Again, with all those points you continue to bring up over and over again: YOU MIGHT BE CORRECT, but why are you so opposed to actually finding out?

Erik W. · 12-07-2009, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Watts

Ok, so using your example Ohio State would play a total of 4 games( at various bowl venues) over the span of 4 weeks. How many of their actual fans are going to be able to attend these games?

Well, in my example, Ohio State would play a maximum of two games, because Alabama would crush them even if they escaped Ga Tech.

But as to the actual answer to your question, I'd say their games would be attended by however many people generally travel to their bowl games, multiplied by the number of games they played.

I'm not against the higher ranked teams hosting the games, at least up until the championship game. But that's even less likely to happen than having a playoff system at all.

jbergey22 · 12-07-2009, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooleyvol

Oh, and bergey, you crack me up. This isnt worth debating at this point with you. You change the direction each time you're cornered.

Umm, pretty sure I was never corned.

Its based on opinion in which NO ONE will ever be right or wrong so I really doubt I could get cornered. I use stats to back up my points while you say you are right for whatever reasons you give.

I'm glad it cracks you up though.

You could give me 1 million reasons why TCU or Boise St deserve that chance as I could give you 1 million reasons why they dont.

12-07-2009, 01:23 PM	#62
Erik W. Global Moderator Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Rivière-du-Loup, Qc Posts: 4,615	16 teams would be too many for a CFB playoff. This year you could even have as few as six, but this is an odd year in that no one below #6 has fewer than two losses. I think you could safely go with a 10 team playoff. No one outside the top 10 has any real room for complaint about not getting to play for the title. So, this year that would be: As for the "top team won't win it!" thing, are they really the best team if they lose? __________________ Free agent baseball fan. Let's go (insert team name here)!

12-07-2009, 01:37 PM	#65
mikev Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area, CA Posts: 4,014	How can you say the best teams are playing in the final game this year? I see 5 teams that haven't lost yet. __________________ Global Unified Baseball Association - Vice Commish and Oakland Oaks GM

12-07-2009, 01:44 PM	#67
mikev Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area, CA Posts: 4,014	Okay so now we're changing the argument and the team that won the game isn't actually better, it's the team you think would win more often. Pointless argument is pointless. __________________ Global Unified Baseball Association - Vice Commish and Oakland Oaks GM

12-07-2009, 01:08 PM	#61
Cooleyvol Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Union City, TN Posts: 6,383	Your math escapes me and the discussion is moot. I maintain that 12 games is enough to find the 16 best teams for a playoff, if that's the size that's desired. I'm torn between 8 and 16 teams in a playoff, but again, its moot.

12-07-2009, 02:31 PM	#74
jbergey22 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,481	TCU's class rankings 2006 61st, 2007 80th, 2008 96th, 2009 46th Boises Class Rankings 2006 70th, 2007 68th, 2008 89th, 2009 72nd taken from Rivals.com Sure its not an indication of a lot of things but its a guideline of the talent of these teams ESPECIALLY when you match them up against a team that is consistently getting top 10 recruiting classes.